Queen Elizabeth

[Econoline]

[ex-khobar Andy]

From the Guardian:

At moments such as these, republicans are faced with a dilemma. “We are saddened to hear the news of the Queen’s death and we wish to express our condolences to the royal family,” tweeted the campaign group Republic. “There will be plenty of time to debate the monarchy’s future. For now, we must respect the family’s personal loss and allow them and others to mourn the loss of a mother, grandmother and great grandmother.”

Classy. (And, just for clarity, I am not being sarcastic.)

[Bicycle Bill]

From the Guardian:

At moments such as these, republicans are faced with a dilemma. “We are saddened to hear the news of the Queen’s death and we wish to express our condolences to the royal family,” tweeted the campaign group Republic. “There will be plenty of time to debate the monarchy’s future. For now, we must respect the family’s personal loss and allow them and others to mourn the loss of a mother, grandmother and great grandmother.”

Classy. (And, just for clarity, I am not being sarcastic.)

Too many people don't see it that way, though.  Their idea of "the time to debate the monarchy's future" would be something akin to "as soon as the body cools."

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

Apparently the UK population is 85% pro-monarchy. I think it’s a safe bet that no matter when the debate continues, it’s not going to result in abolishing the monarchy in our lifetimes. William would have to be revealed to be a serial killer and even then, his kids are awful cute. I do hope that King Charles follows the lead of other European royals and slims things way down - especially given the economic deprivation the average UK citizen is about to experience once the temperatures fall.

[Big RR]

I'm not sure what is in the minds of that 85%, but personally the only reason I can see to keep so expensive an institution as the monarchy is that it makes the UK (especially England) "special", that it serves as a a major tourist attraction. People come to England and queue up to experience the trappings of royalty, from the changing of the guard to the many castles and palaces that can be visited. I'm not sure the investment is worth it, but they are a lot closer to it than I am and, I presume, can judge that value better. Face it, many tourists, especially Americans, travel to London/England to experience a bit of the fairy tale royalty they read about as kids; the bicycle riding Scandinavian and other more egalitarian monarch don't cut it--they are looking for the real thing. I really don't understand it all that much, but it appears to be the case. Can Charles or William destroy this? I really do doubt it, but eventually the people will come to believe that there other real attractions will serve as enough of an attraction that they don't need this inbred family of Germans anymore, but it will take time.

Of course, there may be some of that 85% who believe that the manarchy is essential to the governing of the nation, but that is something I really do not understand at all.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's ours. You're just jealous. Bugger off

Or to put it another way, It is a tangible connection (remote, yes) with the Matter of England. Who cares a fig about the kings or queens of any other country in the world? A dull lot.

And we have bigger ships named after ours.

[Big RR]

FWIW, I'm not more jealous of the royal family than the Brits are of the Trump family (probably even less so). But what is the "Matter of England"?

Personally, I'd keep the castles/palaces and dump the Germans, but that's just me. A chacon a son gout.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Winston Churchill once said of democracy:

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

I'm not a fan of the American idea that Head of Government = Head of State = President. In fact I don't think that is what the Founding Fathers envisaged and certainly the Presidency is Article 2 of the Constitution and not, as you might expect if he was going to be Supreme Boss, Article 1.

Some republics have a Prime Minister (however named) and a President which allegedly fill those distinct roles. But it works differently in different places. Who knows who the Prime Minister of France is? - we all know of President Macron - PM is Elisabeth Borne - and who knows the name of the President of Germany? I had to look him up: it's Frank-Walter Steinmeier. (OK I'm not sure of the current Chancellor - = PM = - Olaf Scholtz; but we all remember Angela Merkel.).

So although I am no royalist it's a bit like Churchill's comment on democracy - there might be better ways to do it but it's not obvious. The Queen did a decent job as the symbol of the country and it remains to be seen whether Chuckie can do the same.

[BoSoxGal]

I don’t buy the tourism argument because many other European countries which have abolished slavery monarchy (how can any human stand to be a ‘subject’ of any other human? Bowing? Curtsying? Fuck me!) have many millions of tourists looking at their old castles and cathedrals and disgusting displays of historical monarchical wealth/oppression of the masses. Isn’t Versailles one of the most visited landmarks on the planet?

The older I get the less I understand, and certainly the attraction - and especially the American attraction - to royalty is bewildering but undeniable. It has to be the fairy tales, I think. The whole cult of Disney princesses that little girls are inculcated with practically from birth. I’d hope the younger generations of parents would stop shoveling that shit on their female children but it actually seems worse now than when I was a kid. I would point out that it not only continues a nasty tradition of revering monarchy, but on another level it sets up all the unreasonable and unrealistic expectations that girls grow into women having about relationships and what to expect from making one with a significant other. The whole Charles and Diana storyline was all that writ large which is one of the reasons why I think she had such an enormous impact just by being yet another cuckolded wife (yes I know she also resorted to infidelity, but the essential truth of that marriage was that only one of them was in love at the altar and she had stars in her foolish eyes).

Anyway I’m a little miffed now that this royal death and transition thing is still major news every day I turn on my morning news show. I unplugged over the weekend I was so sick of it. At least I have a recording to watch of Fareed Zakaria talking to someone actually important - the democratically elected ruler of Ukraine. And Ali Velshi did make some noise Saturday morning about the monarchy’s complicity in centuries of colonialism certainly that’s newsworthy. But if they are seriously going to devote major time every single day until they plant Liz in the vault this is going to get old very fast. There is real news happening in the world! Didn’t we divorce these bitches 246 years ago?!

Meh. Gah!

[BoSoxGal]

The American presidency is a potentially very dangerously powerful position. Certainly not what our founders intended. There are many powers that be which have worked concertedly for decades to shape the American presidency to become this powerful dangerous thing - especially since 9/11/01. Now this potentially dangerous thing is dangling on a line in front of a destabilized right wing nationalist party. After we hopefully defeat the Trumpist movement, we need to figure out how to reform the presidency to bring the balance back to the balance of powers.

[ex-khobar Andy]

The big question, of course, is whether Liz2 will lie in state at Westminster until she is finally interred. It has not yet been decided.

It remains to be seen.

[liberty]

I'm not sure what is in the minds of that 85%, but personally the only reason I can see to keep so expensive an institution as the monarchy is that it makes the UK (especially England) "special", that it serves as a a major tourist attraction. People come to England and queue up to experience the trappings of royalty, from the changing of the guard to the many castles and palaces that can be visited. I'm not sure the investment is worth it, but they are a lot closer to it than I am and, I presume, can judge that value better. Face it, many tourists, especially Americans, travel to London/England to experience a bit of the fairy tale royalty they read about as kids; the bicycle riding Scandinavian and other more egalitarian monarch don't cut it--they are looking for the real thing. I really don't understand it all that much, but it appears to be the case. Can Charles or William destroy this? I really do doubt it, but eventually the people will come to believe that there other real attractions will serve as enough of an attraction that they don't need this inbred family of Germans anymore, but it will take time.

Of course, there may be some of that 85% who believe that the manarchy is essential to the governing of the nation, but that is something I really do not understand at all.

If you want to eliminate all the German (Germanic) blood in England, that would be most of the country. All the Royals are doing by occasionally marrying Germans is renewing their ancestral ties. But if you get rid of all the people of German ancestry (anglo Saxons), you'd make a lot more room for more Pakistanis and sub-Saharan Africans. But what would you do with the English send them back to Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands? How about a mass castration program to get rid of the evil blood? As far as the future of the British royal family is concerned, that's something I leave up to them; after all, they pay the bills.

And I have a potential useful job for the king. British people, like most people in the world, are ignored a lot by their government. So whenever the king is petitioned by what he considers a sufficient number of people, he could call for a national referendum and let the people speak for themselves directly.

[Big RR]

I don’t buy the tourism argument because many other European countries which have abolished slavery monarchy (how can any human stand to be a ‘subject’ of any other human? Bowing? Curtsying? Fuck me!) have many millions of tourists looking at their old castles and cathedrals and disgusting displays of historical monarchical wealth/oppression of the masses. Isn’t Versailles one of the most visited landmarks on the planet?

True, but France has the wine, food, and the art, Italy as well, Germany the beer and music, Netherlands the canals, but take away the royalty and what tourist attractions does England have? Sure, there are superb museums, great scenery (but few venture beyond London), even decent food and music, but that is not what draws many, if not most of the tourists . I agree with you, but then royalty isn't really what it used to be, it's just the illusion the tourists have--about as real as Mickey Mouse. It's just that everyone plays along.

It reminds me of when I graduated from college--we had all these people dressed in regalia and carrying things like maces and gold keys and other crap no one ever sees except during graduation; a woman next to me said "this would be funny if you didn't think that most of the people are highly educated people. Royalty is much the same way, except for education; sure some are, but not all.

[BoSoxGal]

I think you underestimate the filial connection to England and the rest of the UK and Ireland which so many American tourists feel. Millions of Americans would like to visit those countries just to walk where their ancestors walked. The English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish diaspora is huge in this country alone but obviously elsewhere as well. Add to that history buffs and religious buffs and nevermind the massive appeal of seeing the settings of some of the finest literature in all human endeavor, I don’t think the UK will ever hurt for tourism just by abolishing an active monarchy. There will always be thousands of years of monarchical history to revisit there. But I also doubt I’ll live to see the counties of the UK choose to be republics.

Not so other places:

Queen Elizabeth’s Passing Could Push Some Countries to Alter Their Ties to the British Monarchy

Queen Elizabeth II’s passing has sparked an outpouring of mourning across the world, but in many places, the end of her reign is also raising questions about what the future holds.

Over a dozen countries recognized the late monarch as their head of state, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Belize, Jamaica, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Her death is likely to ignite debate about whether her successor, King Charles III, should fulfill that role. Already, there have been calls for change.

Adam Bandt, the leader of Australia’s Greens Party, posted condolences to the Queen’s family on Twitter. But he added “Now Australia must move forward,” saying “We need [a] Treaty with First Nations people, and we need to become a Republic.”

Katie Pickles, a professor of history at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, says “As the importance of the monarchy became less important in society, places like New Zealand hung on because they held the Queen personally in such high respect.”

She tells TIME: “King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla will likely not have the same appeal.”

Cindy McCreery, a senior lecturer in history at the University of Sydney who specializes in monarchy and colonialism, agrees that republican sentiment will be given impetus.

“I do think that now that the Queen has passed on, that does give republicans in Australia and elsewhere more room to speak openly about the constitutional future and to kind of prepare the path for a republic,” McCreery says.

Anti-monarchist sentiment in the Caribbean

In some countries anti-monarchist sentiment has grown in tandem with racial justice movements, bringing anti-colonialist thinking and conversations on Indigenous rights into the mainstream.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge faced a raft of protests on a trip through the Caribbean in March, with some groups demanding an apology and reparations for slavery. William and Kate cancelled a visit to a cacao farm, the first stop on their tour of Belize, because of protests.

Ahead of their visit to Jamaica, an open letter released by the Advocates Network, and signed by more than 100 local leaders, said: “During her 70 years on the throne, your grandmother has done nothing to redress and atone for the suffering of our ancestors that took place during her reign and/or during the entire period of British trafficking of Africans, enslavement, indentureship and colonization.”

According to McCreery, “Particularly countries in the Caribbean, which of course have that very painful legacy of British slavery in the past, I think they are more likely to be among the states that choose to become republics.”

In June, Jamaica’s Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Marlene Malahoo Forte, said that the process of transitioning to a republic had “formally commenced.”

Barbados, once called “Little England” for its tight British ties, became a republic in late 2021.

Republicanism in Australasia

The Australian Republic Movement, which wants an Australian to replace the British King or Queen as the head of state, declined to provide a comment for this article. But in a statement issued after the Queen’s death, it hinted at a political opportunity. “It is unlikely we will ever see a Monarch as respected or admired by the Australian people again,” said Peter FitzSimons, chair of the movement.

In June 2022, Australia appointed Matt Thistlethwaite, a former republican campaigner, as its first ever assistant minister for the republic, to help oversee the country’s potential transition.

“We’ve got this unique opportunity with a Queen coming to the end of her reign, for us to now lay the groundwork so that when that does happen in the future, we’re ready to go with a campaign and a chance to really create a truly independent nation,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald in an interview published on Sept. 3.

In 2016, then leader of New Zealand’s Labour Party, Andrew Little, said that “the end of the reign of the current monarch would be a good time to debate our constitutional arrangements. Do we still want to have our head of state living in London? Or do we want to do something else? Stand on our own two feet?”

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in 2021 that she thinks the country will become a republic in her lifetime.

Rawiri Waititi, a member of New Zealand’s parliament and the co-leader of the Māori Party, said on Twitter on Friday that “the huge vacuum left” by the Queen’s death “will cause debate.”

One New Zealand republican, who asked not to be named, told TIME that “There’s that very strong feeling of nostalgia with the Queen that doesn’t transfer to her son or grandchildren.”

“I think this is very much a moment when the discussion about possible moves to become republics will open up,” McCreery concludes. “I think that there was a great sense of restraint during the Queen’s reign.”

[MajGenl.Meade]

Doesn't matter to me if Australia and other westernized oriental gentlefolk decide to do whatever or do nothing. Good luck to 'em. Also doesn't matter to the issue of monarchy in the UK

By right, the monarch can dismiss or refuse to accept a Prime Minister. It is an excellent check and balance against the royal President malaise under which the USA labors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_p ... ed_Kingdom

[BoSoxGal]

When was the last time a monarch refused to accept a PM?

[BoSoxGal]

[MajGenl.Meade]

I was wrong about "refuse to accept". That would not be done. The last dismissal was 1834.

[ex-khobar Andy]

But I also doubt I’ll live to see the counties of the UK choose to be republics.

Did you mean counties (as in Yorkshire, Cornwall etc) or countries (as in Scotland, Wales etc)?

I don't think there is much of a serious movement for independence at the county level (OK, there is Mebyon Kernow which thinks that Cornwall could stand on its own two feet) but Plaid Cymru (Welsh Independence Party) and the Scottish National Party are real and represent a fairly healthy percentage of their respective electorates. As a native Scot - despite the fact that I don't play golf and I don't drink whisky - I do not want to see Scotland cut off from the Union. Sometimes you need your family even though they sometimes piss you off. That's what families do.

We saw how casually Brexit was adopted. I'd hate to see us ambling into breakup with as little serious thought.

[BoSoxGal]

But I also doubt I’ll live to see the counties of the UK choose to be republics.

Did you mean counties (as in Yorkshire, Cornwall etc) or countries (as in Scotland, Wales etc)?

I don't think there is much of a serious movement for independence at the county level (OK, there is Mebyon Kernow which thinks that Cornwall could stand on its own two feet) but Plaid Cymru (Welsh Independence Party) and the Scottish National Party are real and represent a fairly healthy percentage of their respective electorates. As a native Scot - despite the fact that I don't play golf and I don't drink whisky - I do not want to see Scotland cut off from the Union. Sometimes you need your family even though they sometimes piss you off. That's what families do.

We saw how casually Brexit was adopted. I'd hate to see us ambling into breakup with as little serious thought.

Yes, it was a typo.